IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/compec/v54y2019i3d10.1007_s10614-018-9859-9.html

Computing the Bargaining Approach for Equalizing the Ratios of Maximal Gains in Continuous-Time Markov Chains Games

Author

Listed:
  • Kristal K. Trejo

    (Center for Research and Advanced Studies CINVESTAV-IPN)

  • Julio B. Clempner

    (National Polytechnic Institute)

  • Alexander S. Poznyak

    (Center for Research and Advanced Studies CINVESTAV-IPN)

Abstract

This paper presents a novel approach for computing the Kalai–Smorodinsky bargaining equilibrium for continuous time and discrete states Markov chains games. To solve the bargaining situation we set the disagreement point as the Nash equilibrium of the problem, then to find the new agreement point we follow the bargaining model presented by Kalai–Smorodinsky employing the utopia point concept. We exemplify the game formulation in terms of nonlinear programming equations implementing the Lagrange principle. The Tikhonov’s regularization method is applied to ensure the convergence of the cost-functions to an equilibrium point. For solving the problem we use a programming method implemented by the extraproximal optimization approach. The proposed method is validated by a numerical example related to the labor market problem for a three-person bargaining problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Kristal K. Trejo & Julio B. Clempner & Alexander S. Poznyak, 2019. "Computing the Bargaining Approach for Equalizing the Ratios of Maximal Gains in Continuous-Time Markov Chains Games," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 54(3), pages 933-955, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:compec:v:54:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s10614-018-9859-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10614-018-9859-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10614-018-9859-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10614-018-9859-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moulin, H., 1984. "Implementing the Kalai-Smorodinsky bargaining solution," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 32-45, June.
    2. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    3. Peters, H.J.M. & Tijs, S.H., 1984. "Individually monotonic bargaining solutions of n-person bargaining games," Other publications TiSEM 94ffcb19-a0bc-4364-a42e-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Anant, T. C. A. & Mukherji, Badal & Basu, Kaushik, 1990. "Bargaining without convexity : Generalizing the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 115-119, June.
    5. Kobberling, Veronika & Peters, Hans, 2003. "The effect of decision weights in bargaining problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 154-175, May.
    6. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    7. Driesen, Bram & Perea, Andrés & Peters, Hans, 2011. "The Kalai-Smorodinsky bargaining solution with loss aversion," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 58-64, January.
    8. Dubra, Juan, 2001. "An asymmetric Kalai-Smorodinsky solution," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 131-136, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dittrich, Marcus & Städter, Silvio, 2015. "Moral hazard and bargaining over incentive contracts," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 75-85.
    2. Driesen, Bram & Perea, Andrés & Peters, Hans, 2011. "The Kalai-Smorodinsky bargaining solution with loss aversion," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 58-64, January.
    3. Jaume García-Segarra & Miguel Ginés-Vilar, 2019. "Stagnation proofness in n-agent bargaining problems," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 14(1), pages 215-224, March.
    4. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Jaume García-Segarra & Miguel Ginés-Vilar, 2018. "Anchoring on Utopia: a generalization of the Kalai–Smorodinsky solution," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 6(2), pages 141-155, October.
    5. Yakov Babichenko & Leonard J. Schulman, 2015. "Pareto Efficient Nash Implementation Via Approval Voting," Papers 1502.05238, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2017.
    6. Fabio Galeotti & Maria Montero & Anders Poulsen, 2022. "The Attraction and Compromise Effects in Bargaining: Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2987-3007, April.
    7. Driesen, Bram & Lombardi, Michele & Peters, Hans, 2016. "Feasible sets, comparative risk aversion, and comparative uncertainty aversion in bargaining," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 162-170.
    8. Kang Rong, 2018. "Fair Allocation When Players' Preferences Are Unknown," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 497-509, January.
    9. Nicola Maaser & Alexander Mayer, 2016. "Codecision in context: implications for the balance of power in the EU," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 213-237, January.
    10. Yusuke Samejima, 2005. "A Note on Implementation of Bargaining Solutions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 175-191, November.
    11. Johannes Spinnewijn & Frans Spinnewyn, 2015. "Revising claims and resisting ultimatums in bargaining problems," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 19(2), pages 91-116, June.
    12. Jaume García-Segarra & Miguel Ginés-Vilar, 2013. "Stagnation proofness and individually monotonic bargaining solutions," Working Papers 2013/04, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    13. Anbarci, Nejat & Feltovich, Nick, 2018. "How fully do people exploit their bargaining position? The effects of bargaining institution and the 50–50 norm," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 320-334.
    14. Emililo Calvo, 2004. "Single NTU-value solutions," Game Theory and Information 0405004, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 10 Jun 2004.
    15. Craig Webb, 2013. "Bargaining with subjective mixtures," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 52(1), pages 15-39, January.
    16. Driesen, Bram, 2012. "Proportional concessions and the leximin solution," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 114(3), pages 288-291.
    17. Giuseppe Liddo & Michele G. Giuranno, 2020. "The political economy of municipal consortia and municipal mergers," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 37(1), pages 105-135, April.
    18. Dagmawi Mulugeta Degefu & Weijun He & Liang Yuan, 2017. "Monotonic Bargaining Solution for Allocating Critically Scarce Transboundary Water," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(9), pages 2627-2644, July.
    19. Boragan Aruoba, S. & Rocheteau, Guillaume & Waller, Christopher, 2007. "Bargaining and the value of money," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(8), pages 2636-2655, November.
    20. Marcus Dittrich, 2010. "Minimum Wages and Unemployment Benefits in a Unionized Economy: A Game-Theoretic Approach," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 11(2), pages 209-229, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:compec:v:54:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s10614-018-9859-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.